Page 640 - Pages from 8. 2017 New 26-05-21 No Table- 2nd Half

Included in the bundle there is a copy of the transcript of a case heard by
way of appeal at Kingston Crown Court, on
05/03/2015
05th March 2015
this does appear at page (204 to 000) and it has been given for two reasons
and them reasons being as follows; -
This is an example of what the appellant knows to be victimization by the
police to his person to prove that he did not act in an Anti-social manner on
this date to conclude that this day had nothing to do with the respondent’s
application for the organization of Illegal raves. It was a wrongful
conviction for no insurance at the Magistrates court against which he
appealed, after a police officer gave false information to gain a guilty
verdict, this was later proved at crown court on appeal, due to a recording
of the police officer setting the appellant up. It would be correct to say that
the prosecution was advanced not on the basis that he was not insured; but
that he was not insured for work and therefore he had no insurance and the
court allowed the appeal, because the prosecution was not justified. The
prosecution relies in particular on certain core incidents, namely the event
from
6th to 8th June, the 19th July and 9th to 10th August.
In relation to those occasions and: -
In reference to the
12/01/2013
12th Jan 2013
Canary Wharf
This date in question has been add to the applicants bundle as a reference
as to the Limitation Act 1980. Which states a case must be applied within
six months from the date of the incident. Please take note to the Applicants
last statement dated the 24/02/2015; he was in fact taken to the Royal
London Hospital. It was said by his honour himself that a lot of the
evidence in this case is circumstantial evidence and while the Asbo was
under his observation he took note that particular events or incidents relied
on in the case were on more than one occasion or perhaps the case would
be hard to reach to the criminal standard of proof. Judge Palck continues to
explain that he partly based his verdict on evidence found at page 153 PC
Purcell reports Canary Wharf reporting that they had a rave at Wood Wharf
and supplying information relating to vehicles involved in gaining entry
and carrying equipment, one of the vehicles was MA57 LDY, a Ford
Focus, which was registered to Simon Cordell at 109 Burncroft Avenue,
Enfield, Middlesex. The prosecution state that this evidence simply
demonstrates that the applicant’s car was there. The applicant does not
dispute that his car was there on this date as can be read in his first
statement contained at page number (0000) and he mealy explains that he
was there to visit one of the occupiers of many, the occupier who he was
meeting was living at this address and that he had an accident and went to
hospital not too return to his friend after. The applicant takes disbelief in
the article contained at page 317 and believes this file it to be forged and
that Officer Steve Elsmore created it to aid in his own wrongful self-gain.
Officer Steve Elsmore states; that he found in the police Nation Computer:
- “a cad refined to an incident report from Canary Wharf relating to this